atheism and relativism.

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 322
#241
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

If there is no absolute, objective, unchanging source then you can't say your opinion is objective or even good. All you can say is you like it. 
May be that's how it is.   Just because something sucks doesn't mean its not so, unfortunately.
Maybe?

Then I will be watching how consistently you live that position. 

If you can't live it then there is something WRONG with it other than likes and dislikes.

Is torturing a baby for fun okay for Joe because he likes doing it? Can you say with certainty it is okay for him? Please answer. 

If your society likes torturing babies for fun then it is permissible? Go ahead and do it if you like doing such things? You put as the criteria like and dislikes, not whether something is actually right or wrong.

#242
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

So long as you ask honest questions and attempt to understand my answers before you respond (I will do the same), we are in agreement. 
I'm trying to be as honest as I can. I can do no more. What is a dishonest question?


...and just so you know, our debate on abortion has priority, so this will take a back burner as needed.
Of course. I do nothing else once you present your side of the argument but focus on it, mull it through my head, try to find the flaws in your reasoning. 

#243
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
If something is bad then it must be bad. It can't be bad and not bad depending on who believes it (at the same time and in regards to the same thing). That is ILLOGICAL. 
Not that I agree with Keith's views, but there is no logical contradiction with something being viewed as good and bad by different people at the same time. 

#244
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
What is a dishonest question?
This is an honest question. You are looking for my answer and not trying to build your own into the question. 

Topic's author
#245
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Is torturing a baby for fun okay for Joe because he likes doing it? Can you say with certainty it is okay for him? Please answer. 
I don't think either of us like the idea of babies being tortured for fun and I am sure that if either of us were to discover someone doing it we would strive to stop it happening.   I think you don't grasp the distinction between 'ethics' and 'meta-ethics'.  That is to say we probably have broad agreement on what is and what is not acceptable, or desirable (ie ethics).   We differ widely about 'meta ethics', i.e. what lies behind our ethical judgements.

I contend that our moral judgements are driven by an evolved instinct.  We are born it with because it has proved useful (in a Darwinian sense)over thousands and millions years to have such a thing.   Your contention is that judgements are due to the presnce of some non-physical property or stuff (good or evil) in certain acts.   Those are different meta-ethical theories.   Both explain why you and I find baby totrure unacceptable but it is unlikely they are both correct and naturally I think it is my meta-ethical theory is correct and yours is superstitious nonsense!  
Where we probably differ most in our ethical judgements is where your judgement is too closely tied to your erroneous meta-ethics, such as if you were to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

#246
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

If something is bad then it must be bad. It can't be bad and not bad depending on who believes it (at the same time and in regards to the same thing). That is ILLOGICAL. 
Not that I agree with Keith's views, but there is no logical contradiction with something being viewed as good and bad by different people at the same time. 
There is if you are both speaking of the same thing, say abortion, and you have opposite views there is a logical contradiction. They both can't be true to what is.
#247
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

What is a dishonest question?
This is an honest question. You are looking for my answer and not trying to build your own into the question. 
So you want no rhetorical questions? It is a literary device used to make a point. 
#248
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
He was doing terrible until you endorsed him into abysmal, good for you shouting from the underside of the barrel.
#249
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
What makes you think you have a right to any woman's body?
#250
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So what makes it RIGHT? Your subjective opinion on the subject matter?
That is all you have, why isn't it good enough for others?

#251
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Is torturing a baby for fun okay for Joe because he likes doing it? Can you say with certainty it is okay for him? Please answer. 
Torturing a baby for fun is wrong, in my opinion.
Claiming to have the right to a woman's body is wrong, in my opinion.
It would seem from your very specific question that you may consider torturing a baby for reasons other than fun is acceptable to you, if not then why do you specify "for fun"?
Do you disagree with torturing a baby for fun because your ultimate authority instructs you so and without that ultimate authority you would find it acceptable?
It would seem that all of these things that atheists find inherently wrong requires you to be ordered not to participate in. It would also seem that the world is fortunate that you have these orders that you are compelled to follow since you obviously have no inherent understand of right and wrong, you can't think for yourself, without your orders you would be a psychopath, it would seem.

#252
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I can hate chocolate and you can love it (at the same time) and there is no logical contradiction. 
#253
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

I can hate chocolate and you can love it (at the same time) and there is no logical contradiction.  

Is chocolate a moral flavor? What does a chocolate preference have to do with right and wrong? You are confusing categories.
#254
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
If I think people have a right to control their own body and you think people do not have a right to control their own body (at the same time) there is no logical contradiction.

For there to be a logical contradiction, these views would need to exist in the same person at the same time. It makes no difference if the subject is ice cream or moral views.
#255
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

If I think people have a right to control their own body and you think people do not have a right to control their own body (at the same time) there is no logical contradiction. 
I think people have a right to control their own bodies to an extent, and an obligation to do so. Where it crosses the line is when they harm others with their bodies. 



For there to be a logical contradiction, these views would need to exist in the same person at the same time. It makes no difference if the subject is ice cream or moral views.
Not necessarily so. For there to be a logical contradiction the moral view on the same subject would have to contradict. Liking ice-cream and liking to torture innocent human beings for fun are different categories.

One is a preference. The other is a moral issue. 

One is a subjective taste and the other is plain wrong morally.

It is not just your subjective taste that it affects. You liking ice-cream does not in any way affect me as to whether I like it or not. You torturing me for fun when I have done nothing to you is not just your subjective preference. It now affects me in a way I don't like and is harmful to me. 

 Also when you say these views would have to exist in the same person at the same time you have it wrong. We are discussing morality in conflict and two people holding different views about what is good. That was the subject of the conversation. So logically good can't be good and not good at the same time and in the same way. 
#256
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

What makes you think you have a right to any woman's body?
I don't think I do unless she permits me the right. What makes you think the woman has a right to harm another body? 
#257
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted


So what makes it RIGHT? Your subjective opinion on the subject matter?
That is all you have, why isn't it good enough for others?
You can't prove that my subjectivity does not have an objective standard to look to and when I correctly interpret that standard it is objectively so. All you can do is assert I don't have such a standard to look to while I point out that you don't have what is necessary to know moral goodness if there is no objective standard as the measure. Why would I give two cents for your standard if it is subject to change - pure relativism? You just make it up to suit your purposes. I don't value such a standard unless it complies with the greater standard that you know very little of. 

#258
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

Is torturing a baby for fun okay for Joe because he likes doing it? Can you say with certainty it is okay for him? Please answer. 
I don't think either of us like the idea of babies being tortured for fun and I am sure that if either of us were to discover someone doing it we would strive to stop it happening.   I think you don't grasp the distinction between 'ethics' and 'meta-ethics'.  That is to say we probably have broad agreement on what is and what is not acceptable, or desirable (ie ethics).   We differ widely about 'meta ethics', i.e. what lies behind our ethical judgements.
I don't only not like it, I KNOW it is wrong. You can't say it is, which is disturbing that you don't recognize it as pure evil, no matter who does it.

You said nothing is wrong but you are going to stop Joe from doing it because you don't like it. Why would you stop him from doing it if it was not wrong? Surely it is live and let live??? This shows the inconsistency of the nihilist position. 



I contend that our moral judgements are driven by an evolved instinct.  We are born it with because it has proved useful (in a Darwinian sense)over thousands and millions years to have such a thing.   Your contention is that judgements are due to the presnce of some non-physical property or stuff (good or evil) in certain acts.   Those are different meta-ethical theories.   Both explain why you and I find baby totrure unacceptable but it is unlikely they are both correct and naturally I think it is my meta-ethical theory is correct and yours is superstitious nonsense!  
Why does a mindless process build into itself instinct, and instinct to live? It just happens. No reason. Those who survive have instinct and those who do not survive lack the instinct. So what? How does that make anything good? Is it good to survive in a meaningless universe that does not care about you and won't when you serve your pointless, meaningless existence? You have already stated there is no wrong. Does that mean there is no good either?

You are welcome to your beliefs but they don't make sense from a senseless universe, yet you continue to make and find sense in them? Why? It is all futile from a nihilist perspective. Nothing matters yet you continually make it matter. That is inconsistent. 

 
Where we probably differ most in our ethical judgements is where your judgement is too closely tied to your erroneous meta-ethics, such as if you were to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.
How can it be erroneous if it is not wrong? According to your worldview, nothing is wrong?

#259
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
You said nothing is wrong but you are going to stop Joe from doing it because you don't like it. Why would you stop him from doing it if it was not wrong? Surely it is live and let live??? This shows the inconsistency of the nihilist position. 
He can't answer you, but to his credit, he will be the most honest about his position. The atheist's position here is wholly illogical, and easily demonstrated to be. So they deflect and dodge.
#260
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So what makes it RIGHT? Your subjective opinion on the subject matter?
That is all you have, why isn't it good enough for others?
You can't prove that my subjectivity does not have an objective standard to look to and when I correctly interpret that standard it is objectively so. All you can do is assert I don't have such a standard to look to while I point out that you don't have what is necessary to know moral goodness if there is no objective standard as the measure. Why would I give two cents for your standard if it is subject to change - pure relativism? You just make it up to suit your purposes. I don't value such a standard unless it complies with the greater standard that you know very little of. 

"when I correctly interpret that standard" Makes it subjective and what you are interpreting is the ideas presented by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages so subjective. There is no objective standard as you claim, you just don't understand that that is what you are claiming. I certainly wouldn't give 2 cents for the opinions of ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages, you know your unchanging objective standard. LOL.

#261
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Then you have no place in the abortion discussion. Stay out.
Respond to post #251, instead of running away in fear.
#262
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Illogical? What atheist position? Prove it.
#263
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
A rhetorical question is a useful tool for provoking thought, but it like all tools can be abused. Ultimately, a question is not an argument, its garnish - and a plate of garnish leaves one unsatiated.

I say this after responding to your round 3 arguments in our debate on abortion. You had ~ 41 questions, if I remember correctly. It's a crutch you rely on too heavily upon, imo.


#264
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I think people have a right to control their own bodies to an extent,
There are no part-time rights.

#265
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
For there to be a logical contradiction, these views would need to exist in the same person at the same time. It makes no difference if the subject is ice cream or moral views.
Not necessarily so. For there to be a logical contradiction the moral view on the same subjectwould have to contradict. Liking ice-cream and liking to torture innocent human beings for fun are different categories. 

The law of non-contradiction applies to all logical categories. You can pluck ice cream out of the example and insert moral view X and the analogy is still applicable. I'm not sure I understand what you are even objecting to. We should easily agree on this.
Topic's author
#266
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
@PGA2.0
pga: You said nothing is wrong but you are going to stop Joe from doing it because you don't like it. Why would you stop him from doing it if it was not wrong? Surely it is live and let live??? This shows the inconsistency of the nihilist position. 
e5: He can't answer you, but to his credit, he will be the most honest about his position. The atheist's position here is wholly illogical, and easily demonstrated to be. So they deflect and dodge.

"Why would you stop him from doing it if it was not wrong? Surely it is live and let live???"

I would stop him for the same reason you would - we judge baby torture as wrong.   I am trying to explain that you are mistaken as to how and why you judge baby torture as wrong.   Its not because baby torture 'is evil' - it's because your brain is wired-up by evolution to abhor pointless suffering because having that emotion that helped our our species survive.

Put another way there is no such thing as morality - there are only moral judgements.
 
#267
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
And he addressed that point. It is illogical to think that a meaningless universe based on chance would come up with moral judgements.
Topic's author
#268
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Imagine 100 isolated societies.  Now assign - at random - different mixes of anarchic selfishness and co-operation within each society.   Those societies where the members were all pure egoists would probably die out in a generation of robbing and killing each other;  societies of super-cooperators would do better than the pure egoists, but the long-term optimal could well be something like 80%  co-operation and 20% selfishness.

A system of moral judgements that inhibits some forms of behaviour and promotes others is how out species achieved long-term persistence.
 







#269
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Yes, but you start out with your illogical assumption as true. That is circular.

PGA2.0 said, 

Why does a mindless process build into itself instinct, and instinct to live? It just happens. No reason. Those who survive have instinct and those who do not survive lack the instinct. So what? How does that make anything good? Is it good to survive in a meaningless universe that does not care about you and won't when you serve your pointless, meaningless existence? You have already stated there is no wrong. Does that mean there is no good either?
You are welcome to your beliefs but they don't make sense from a senseless universe, yet you continue to make and find sense in them? Why? It is all futile from a nihilist perspective. Nothing matters yet you continually make it matter. That is inconsistent. 
It is inconsistent. You simply assume this. Against all reason. You are welcome to be irrational, but please don't pretend you aren't.
Topic's author
#270
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
You'll have to identify the "illogical assumption" I am making for me.

Nothing matters yet you continually make it matter. That is inconsistent. 
Baby torture matters to me, but it does't matter to the universe.   No planet is going to change its orbit to stop a child-molester.   If I am aware of a case of child-molstation whether that child is molested or not depends on a battle of wills between me and the molestor - there is no 'cosmic good' or 'cosmic evil' on either side.